Aug 15 - Is there any adult in America who is unaware that exposure
to asbestos is linked to certain cancers and respiratory diseases?
The cause and effect has been conclusively documented, yet our
government is now proposing to spend hundreds of thousands of
taxpayer dollars and use tens of thousands of animals to re-explore
this issue.

And that's just the tip of this illogical iceberg. The Department of
Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program (NTP) also
wants to do more experiments on animals with such known dangerous
substances as methanol, ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and diacetyl,
an ingredient of microwave popcorn butter flavoring that
causes "popcorn workers' lung disease"-a sometimes fatal
deterioration of the lungs of factory workers who handle it.

When we have reams of studies involving people and we know that
something is just bad news, why would anyone suggest poisoning more
animals with it? The answer points to a larger problem: Our
government isn't keeping up with current science. The proof is in a
recently released report by the National Academy of Sciences, our
government's chief advisory body on all things scientific, which
calls for the use of more effective non-animal methods for testing
suspect substances.

According to "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a
Strategy," by the Academy's National Research Council (NRC),
toxicity experiments using animals are expensive, time-consuming and
don't reliably predict what happens to people exposed to the
chemicals. Asbestos and butter flavoring are perfect examples, as
neither one of these substances affects animals in the same way that
they do humans. There has been a revolution in our understanding of
biology since the 1950s and '60s, when many of the animal tests that
are now in use were devised. The NRC report describes the potential
effect of this revolution: "Toxicity testing is approaching a
scientific pivot point .... It is poised to take advantage of the
revolutions in biology and biotechnology" and largely replace animal
tests with cutting-edge non-animal methods.

Yet according to the report, many scientists are so comfortable with
the status quo that they won't welcome any change: "[C]urrent
toxicity-testing practices are long established and deeply ingrained
in some sectors," the report warns. "Thus, some resistance to the
vision proposed by this committee is expected." Rather than upset
its system, the government's current animal-testing programs
virtually ignore the new science and an entire era of scientific
progress.

PETA saw this first-hand recently, when we testified to NTP
representatives at the meeting of its Board of Scientific Counselors
at Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. They acknowledged the
truth of what we said-that animal tests are unpredictive-and then
confirmed the report's concern that some scientists will resist
change against all reason. When we pointed out that animals exposed
to butter flavoring don't show the same effects as humans, one
panelist acknowledged that, yes, "it's not clear how one would
extrapolate findings from the animal studies to humans" then went on
to state, in a shocking non sequitur, "but that doesn't lessen my
enthusiasm for this study."

While our initial interest in toxicology was prompted by our desire
to protect animals from cruel, useless experiments, the fact that
these animal tests do not adequately protect public health or the
environment should be of the utmost concern to everyone.

Rather than maintaining this ineffective status quo, the government
should apply its resources to the use of human-relevant non-animal
methods to regulate toxic chemicals. The scientists whose mandate is
protecting the public health need to get a copy of the NRC report
and study it cover to cover. We have the information we need to
protect popcorn and asbestos workers-and many others-right now.
Giving a green light to this bottomless pit of animal tests delays
needed protections, wastes taxpayer funds, is cruel to animals and
represents just plain shoddy science.